The Societal and Economic Impacts of Recent Dramatic ...

Hamline University's School of Law's Journal of Public Law andPolicy

Volume 36 | Issue 1 Article 5

2015

The Societal and Economic Impacts of RecentDramatic Shifts in State Marijuana Law: HowShould Minnesota Proceed in the Future?Andrew L. ScherfHamline University School of Law

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.hamline.edu/jplp

Part of the Criminal Law Commons, and the Public Law and Legal Theory Commons

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by DigitalCommons@Hamline. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hamline University'sSchool of Law's Journal of Public Law and Policy by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@Hamline.

Recommended Citation36 Hamline J. Pub. L. & Pol'y 119

http://digitalcommons.hamline.edu/jplp?utm_source=digitalcommons.hamline.edu%2Fjplp%2Fvol36%2Fiss1%2F5&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages


http://digitalcommons.hamline.edu/jplp/vol36?utm_source=digitalcommons.hamline.edu%2Fjplp%2Fvol36%2Fiss1%2F5&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

http://digitalcommons.hamline.edu/jplp/vol36/iss1?utm_source=digitalcommons.hamline.edu%2Fjplp%2Fvol36%2Fiss1%2F5&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

http://digitalcommons.hamline.edu/jplp/vol36/iss1/5?utm_source=digitalcommons.hamline.edu%2Fjplp%2Fvol36%2Fiss1%2F5&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages


http://network.bepress.com/hgg/discipline/912?utm_source=digitalcommons.hamline.edu%2Fjplp%2Fvol36%2Fiss1%2F5&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

http://network.bepress.com/hgg/discipline/871?utm_source=digitalcommons.hamline.edu%2Fjplp%2Fvol36%2Fiss1%2F5&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

The Societal and Economic Impacts of Recent Dramatic Shifts in State Marijuana Law: How

Should Minnesota Proceed in the Future?

By: Andrew L. Scherf 1

I. Introduction

In writing this article, I set out to analyze the different types

of existing marijuana laws in the United States including the federal

laws, state marijuana decriminalization laws, medical marijuana

laws, and recreational marijuana laws. Marijuana is illegal in all

aspects at the federal government level, and is characterized as a

Schedule 1 narcotic with no legitimate medicinal purpose.2 Many

states have not held the same belief as the federal government,

however, and have passed laws decriminalizing the possession of

small amounts of marijuana by issuing fines with no jail time for first-

time offenders.3 Additionally, many state legislatures have enacted

medical marijuana statutes, allowing patients with a qualified

1 2016 Juris Doctor Candidate Hamline University School of Law. He'd like to

extend his sincere thanks to his primary editor William Miley for all of the help

and encouragement throughout the writing process. 2 The medicinal legitimacy of marijuana under the CSA has been debated for

decades. Recently, more physicians opine that marijuana has many legitimate

medical benefits. Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act, PUB.

L. NO. 91-513, 84 STAT. 1236 (1970) (codified as amended at 21 U.S.C. §§ 801-

889 (2006)); See generally Sanjay Gupta, Why I Changed My Mind on Weed, CNN

(Aug. 8, 2013, 8:44 P.M.), http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/08/health/gupta-changed-

mind-marijuana/. 3 There are currently seventeen states and Washington D.C. that have enacted laws

decriminalizing the possession of small amounts of marijuana. These states

include: Alaska, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland,

Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New York, North

Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Vermont. See States That Have

Decriminalized, NORML, http://norml.org/aboutmarijuana/item/states-that-have-

decriminalized, (last visited Sept. 22, 2014, 12:30 P.M.).

120 JOURNAL OF PUBLIC LAW & POLICY Vol. 36.1

condition to use marijuana for relief.4 Further, in 2012, Colorado and

Washington became the first two states to pass laws legalizing the

adult recreational use of marijuana.

Section I of this article will briefly describe the history of

federal law regulating the use and possession of marijuana. Section

II will discuss varying marijuana decriminalization statutes in the

United States and what social or economic effects, if any,

decriminalization has had on each state. Section III will discuss

medical marijuana laws and assess what implications they have had

on the society and economy around them. Section IV will discuss the

very recent legalization of marijuana for adult recreational use laws

passed in Colorado and Washington. After careful consideration of

the different types of marijuana laws enacted throughout the country,

I conclude by recommending that Minnesota decriminalize

marijuana further by decreasing penalties for possession, expand the

medical marijuana program, and make a concerted effort to analyze

and study the benefits of legalizing marijuana for adult recreational

use.

II. Brief History of Federal Marijuana Law

Prior to the 1930’s, marijuana was not treated with the same

contempt as it was until fairly recently.5 This began to change when

4 Currently, 35 states and Washington D.C. have laws that allow, or will allow in

the future, access to medical marijuana to qualified patients. These states include:

Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida,

Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan,

Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New

Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, South

Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin. See Medical

Marijuana, NORML, http://norml.org/component/zoo/category/recent-research-

on-medical-marijuana, (last visited Sept. 26, 2014, 3:45 P.M.). 5 Many reasons are purported to be the cause of the surge in political and social

attitude shifts toward the prohibition of marijuana. Reasons most often cited

include the fear of marijuana use spreading as a substitution for opiates and alcohol

as well as the clash between state governments and the steadily growing Mexican-

American community. See Richard J. Bonnie & Charles H. Whitebread, II, The

36.1Shifts in Marijuana Law: How Should Minnesota Proceed? 121

the National Conference of Commissioners adopted the Uniform

Narcotic Drug Act (UNDA) in 1932.6 This act was aimed at repealing

all previous drug laws in favor of more strict and rigid laws, while

simultaneously encouraging states to adopt similar measures to

ensure consistency among the states, leading to nearly uniform

adoption of laws similar to those in the UNDA.7

In 1937, Congress enacted the Marihuana Tax Act, placing a

tax on the sale of marijuana in an effort described as facilitating the

enforcement of the UNDA.8 The Marihuana Tax Act was repealed in

1970 with the passage of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA).9 The

CSA set in stone future decades of marijuana prohibition by

categorizing it as a Schedule 1 narcotic (a schedule higher than

cocaine or heroin), in providing that it had no legitimate current

medicinal benefit and a high likelihood of abuse.10 Under the CSA,

possessing, distributing, cultivating, and prescribing marijuana are

punishable as serious felonies.11 In Gonzales v. Raich, a landmark

U.S. Supreme Court decision, the Court upheld the constitutionality

of the CSA and the power of the United States Congress to regulate

marijuana possession, cultivation, and sale under its’ commerce

clause power.12

More recently, despite marijuana still Schedule 1 status,

President Obama’s administration has declared that it will allow

states with medical marijuana laws as well as states with recreational

Forbidden Fruit and the Tree of Knowledge: An Inquiry Into the Legal History of

American Marijuana Prohibition, 56 VA. L. REV. 971, 1021 (1970). 6 Id. at 1047. 7 See Kenneth Baumgartner, PRESCRIPTIONS, Part 1306, CONTROLLED

SUBSTANCES HANDBOOK, 2005 WL 4913201. 8 Marijuana Tax Act, PUB. L. NO. 75-238, 50 STAT. 551 (1937). 9 Under Schedule I, marijuana is included alongside mescaline and peyote, among

other arguably more dangerous substances. Schedule II, where the drugs still have

a high likelihood of abuse but have “a currently accepted medical use in treatment,”

includes cocaine, heroin, and strong painkillers. Comprehensive Drug Abuse

Prevention and Control Act of 1970, supra note 1. 10 Sam Kamin, Cooperative Federalism and State Marijuana Regulation, 85 U.

COLO. L. REV. 1105, 1106 (2014). 11 Id. 12 See Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1, 6 (2005).


marijuana measures to go forward with implementing those laws

without government intervention.13 However, the Department of

Justice and President still have many concerns regarding the

changing marijuana laws, including the effects on minor and adult

usage, drugged driving rates, and property and violent crime rates.14

III. The Social and Economic Implications of Decriminalizing

Marijuana at the State Level

A. Introduction

Often times, when a person hears the phrase

“decriminalization,” whether it is a drug or different crime, it is

assumed that there are no penalties associated with it. However, that

is generally not how marijuana decriminalization laws work. When

states enact laws that decriminalize marijuana possession, it means

that there will be no resulting jail time for first time offenses.15 There

are currently 17 states and the District of Columbia decriminalizing

the possession of small amounts of marijuana, with fines as high as

$650 in Oregon to as low as $25 in Washington D.C.16

In this section, I will first look at the laws of Oregon,

Minnesota, Massachusetts, and Washington D.C. and use them as

examples of the different types of decriminalization laws that

13 See James M. Cole, Guidance Regarding Marijuana Enforcement, U.S. DEP’T

OF JUSTICE, 1, (2013),

http://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/resources/3052013829132756857467.pdf. 14 Kamin, supra note 9, at 1112. 15 In many states with decriminalization laws, a second and subsequent possession

offense will likely result in a jail sentence. See Nicholas Thimmesch II, There’s a

Big Difference Between Legalization and Decriminalization, DAILY CALLER

(2013), http://dailycaller.com/2013/10/25/theres-a-big-difference-between-

legalization-and-decriminalization/. 16 On the other hand, the majority of states have fines between $100 and $200.

Oregon Laws & Penalties, NORML, http://norml.org/laws/item/oregon-penalties-

2?category_id=881 (last visited Sept. 23, 2014); District of Columbia Laws &

Penalties, NORML, http://norml.org/laws/item/district-of-columbia-penalties (last

visited Sept. 23, 2014); see generally States That Have Decriminalized, supra note

2.


currently exist in the United States. Next, I will analyze the many

different arguments surrounding decriminalizing possession of

marijuana. More specifically, there are three main issues, which

include: whether or not decriminalization will result in higher usage

rates among both minors and adults; whether the decriminalization

laws truly lower the amount of money spent on marijuana law

enforcement; whether racial disparities exist among marijuana

possessions arrests and if so, to what extent and how it affects those

groups. To conclude this section, I will explore Minnesota’s current

options regarding reformation of its decriminalization laws. The

chart located below is a brief summation of the varying

socioeconomic data related to marijuana decriminalization laws in

my subject analysis states.


Table 1 – Comparison of Decriminalization Laws

and Marijuana-related Socioeconomic Data for Select States17

State (Year

decriminalz-

ation law

enacted)

Estimated

money spent

on

marijuana

enforcement

(Spending

Year)i

Fine for

marijuana

possession

Arrest

rates for

marijuana

possession

(Data

Year)ii

Minor

(age 12-

17)

Marijuana

Usage

(Data

year)iii

Adult (age

18-25)

Marijuana

Usage

(Data

year)iv

Adult

(age

26+)

Marij-

uana

Usage

(Data

year)v

Racial Disparities

(Blacks more likely

to be arrested for

marijuana

possession)vi

Massachusetts

(2008) $9,327,650

(2010) $100 fine

for <1 ozvii

19 per

100,000

residents

(2012)

11.34-

13.54%

(2010)

25.62-

35.09%

(2010)

8.22-

12.00%

(2010)

(3.9x more likely)

Blacks: 61/100,000;

Whites: 16/100,000

Oregon (1970) $50,194,024

(2010) $650 fine

for <1 oz18

295 per

100,000

(2012)

11.34-

13.54%

(2010)

25.62-

35.09%

(2010)

8.22-

12.00%

(2010)

(2.1x more likely)

Blacks: 563/100,000;

Whites: 271/100,000 Washington

D.C. (2014) $59,000,000

(2010) $25 fine

for <1 oz19

846 per

100,000

(2012)

11.34-

13.54%

(2010)

22.13-

25.61%

(2010)

8.22-

12.00%

(2010)

(8.05x more likely)

Blacks:

1,489/100,000;

Whites: 185/100,000 Minnesota

(1970’s) $41,071,288

(2010) $250 fine

for <42.5

g20

141 per

100,000

(2012)

6.89-

8.70%

(2010)

17.85-

20.02%

(2010)

3.51-

5.03%

(2010)

(7.8x more likely)

Blacks: 835/100,000;

Whites: 107/100,000

B. Marijuana Decriminalization Laws of Selected

Jurisdictions: Massachusetts, Oregon, Minnesota,

and Washington D.C.

17 See Endnotes for table source information 18 OR. REV. STAT. § 475.864 (2013). 19 DC ST. § 48-1201 (2014). 20 MINN. STAT. § 152.027 (2012).


In 1973, Oregon became the first state in the United States to

decriminalize the possession of marijuana.21 Under the Oregon law,

possession of less than one ounce of marijuana results in a $650 fine

and no jail time.22 If an individual possesses more than one ounce but

less than four ounces, it is a Class B misdemeanor which can result

in a jail sentence of no more than six months and a fine of up to

$1,000.23

Many states, including Minnesota, followed Oregon’s lead

and passed laws decriminalizing possession of small amounts of

marijuana in the 1970’s.24 Under Minn. Stat. § 152.027, possession

of less than 42.5 grams (approximately 1.5 ounces) results in a fine

of $200 and the possibility of a mandatory drug treatment program.25

While the fine is relatively low for possessing less than 42.5 grams,

the punishments for possession of between 42.5 grams and 10

kilograms is a jail sentence of up to five years and a fine of up to

$5,000.26

In December 2008, the Massachusetts legislature enacted a

measure making possession of small amounts of marijuana a civil

penalty.27 Under this law, possessing less than one ounce of

marijuana subjects citizens to a $100 fine.28 If an individual possesses

more than one ounce, it could result in a jail sentence of up to six

months and a fine between $500 and $5,000.29 This penalty is

qualified, however, because the law then goes on to state “first-time

offenders of the controlled substances act will be placed on probation

and all official records relating to the conviction will be sealed upon

21 See Chris Suellentrop, Which States Decriminalized MJ Possession?,

CANNABIS NEWS, http://cannabisnews.com/news/8/thread8678.shtml (last updated

Feb. 14, 2001). 22 OR. REV. STAT. § 475.864 (2013). 23 See Oregon Laws & Penalties, supra note 15. 24 Suellentrop, supra note 26. 25 MINN. STAT. § 152.027 (2012). 26 Minnesota Laws & Penalties, http://norml.org/laws/item/minnesota-penalties-2

(last visited Sept. 21, 2014). 27 MASS. GEN. LAWS CH. 94C § 32L (2008). 28 Id. 29 MASS. GEN. LAWS. CH. 94C, § 34 (2008).


successful completion of probation.”30 A subsequent offense could

result in a fine of up to $2,000 and up to two years in jail.31

In July 2014, Washington D.C. became the most recent

jurisdiction to decriminalize the possession of less than one ounce of

marijuana.32 The Washington D.C. city council made possession of

less than one ounce of marijuana a civil violation, resulting in just a

$25 fine.33 This fine is $75 less than the next lowest fine of $100,

which is in place in three states (including Massachusetts).34

Possession of one ounce or more, on the other hand, can result in up

to six months in jail and a fine of $1,000.35

C. Decriminalization: Is it effective?

1. Usage Rates

According to the most recent Substance Abuse and Mental

Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) study on illicit drug use

in 2012, 7.3% of Americans reported using marijuana within the last

year, making marijuana the most commonly used illicit drug in the

United States.36 This is nothing new, however, as marijuana has been

the most widely used drug, behind alcohol and tobacco, for many

decades.37 Many opponents of marijuana decriminalization fear that

it will send the wrong message to citizens, inevitably leading to

30 MASS. GEN. LAWS. CH. 94C, § 34 (2008). 31 Id. 32 DC ST. § 48-1201 (2014). 33 DC ST. § 48-1203(a) (2014). 34 In addition to Massachusetts, New York and California also have fines of $100

for possessing small amounts of marijuana. See generally States That Have

Decriminalized, supra note 2. 35 District of Columbia Laws & Penalties, supra note 15. 36 This number represents only those individuals who responded to the survey. See

Ryan Jaslow, New U.S. Drug Survey: Marijuana and Heroin Increasing, CBS

NEWS (Sep. 4, 2013, 4:28 P.M.), http://www.cbsnews.com/news/new-us-drug-

survey-marijuana-and-heroin-increasing/. 37 Commonly Used Drug Chart, NAT. INST. ON DRUG ABUSE (March 2011),

http://www.drugabuse.gov/drugs-abuse/commonly-abused-drugs/commonly-

abused-drugs-chart.


higher use and abuse rates among minors as well as adults.38 On the

other hand, proponents state that decriminalization laws will not lead

to higher usage rates and that those using it after the law is passed,

will be the ones who used it beforehand.

Marijuana use rates across the United States have been

increasing for over a decade, including states where marijuana is still

prohibited as well as states with decriminalization laws.39 The best

age range to illustrate adult use rates are those aged 18-25, as this age

range consistently has the highest use rates among any adult age

group. In 2012, for example, Massachusetts saw a use rate among

adults between the ages of 18-25 of just over 25%.40 Oklahoma, on

the other hand, has some of the harshest penalties in the United States

for marijuana possession and reported a use rate of just over 14%

among those aged 18-25 in 2012.41

Comparatively, four years earlier in 2008, the results of the

National Survey on Drug Use and Health estimated Massachusetts

had an adult use rate of between 22.53% and 30.56%.42 In addition,

Oklahoma had a use rate estimated between 8.06% and 14.19% in

2008. 43 Based on these results, in 2012 both Massachusetts and

Oklahoma are still well within the estimates of the survey conducted

by SAMHSA in 2008. This indicates two things. First, Massachusetts

38 See David Mineta, Decriminalization Would Increase the Use and the

Economic and Social Costs of Drugs, AMERICA’S QUARTERLY,

http://www.americasquarterly.org/node/1915 (last visited Sept. 18, 2014) (arguing

that decriminalization of drugs, including marijuana, will serve only minimal

benefits and significantly increase adult and minor use rates). 39 See generally Results from the 2012 National Survey on Drug Use and Health:

Summary of National Findings, SUBSTANCE ABUSE AND MENTAL HEALTH

SERVICES ADMIN. (2012),

http://www.samhsa.gov/data/NSDUH/2012SummNatFindDetTables/Index.aspx 40 Christopher Ingraham, Where Americans Smoke Marijuana the Most, THE

WASHINGTON POST,

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/08/05/where-

americans-smoke-marijuana-the-most/(last updated August 4, 2014). 41 Id. 42 State Estimates from the 2008-2009 NSDUH, SUBSTANCE ABUSE AND MENTAL

SERVICES ADMIN. (2008), http://www.samhsa.gov/data/2k9State/Ch2.htm#fig2.17 43 Id.


implemented decriminalization laws in 2008 and it had little to no

effect on use rates, with similar usage rates one year before and four

years after decriminalization. Second, Oklahoma, having no

decriminalization laws in effect, also saw little to no difference on

use rates over the same time period. This indicates that if a state

implements decriminalization measures, there will not necessarily be

any statistically significant effect on use rates of those aged 18-25.44

Effects on minor use rates show similar, relatively

insignificant increases as compared to adult use. According the

results of the 2012 National Survey on Drug Use and Health, the

estimated national average for marijuana use within the last 30 days

by those aged 12-17 was 7.55%.45 In Minnesota, where the

decriminalization law took effect in the early 1970s, the 2012 rate of

marijuana use for the same age group in the last month was 7.27%,

just below the national average.46 Comparatively, in the neighboring

state of South Dakota, where marijuana is not decriminalized, the

same use rate for minors was 6.44%.47 Similar statistically

insignificant results occur in California, where both medical and

decriminalized marijuana laws are present, with a use rate of 8.83%

in 2012 as compared to 7.50-8.45% in 2008.48 When comparing use

rates, states with more relaxed marijuana provisions do not show

44 See Kieran Speranzam, Effects of Massachusetts’ Decriminalization of

Marijuana Law on Use Patterns, 7 BRIDGEWATER ST. U. UNDERGRADUATE REV.

101 (2011). 45 Marijuana Use in the Past Month: 2011-2012 National Survey on Drug Use

and Health, SUBSTANCE ABUSE AND MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES ADMIN. (2012),

www.samhsa.gov/data/NSDUH/2k12State/Tables/NSDUHsaeTables2012.pdf 46 Id. 47 Id. 48 California became the first state to implement a medical marijuana program in

1996. Despite the medical marijuana law, marijuana was not decriminalized until

2010 in California. See State Estimates from the 2008-2009 NSDUH, SUBSTANCE

ABUSE AND MENTAL SERVICES ADMIN. (2008),

http://www.samhsa.gov/data/2k9State/Ch2.htm#fig2.10; See Susan Ferriss,

Marijuana Decriminalization Law Brings Down Juvenile Arrests in California,

CENTER FOR PUB. INTEGRITY (May 19, 2014, 12:19 P.M.),

http://www.publicintegrity.org/2012/11/26/11842/marijuana-decriminalization-

law-brings-down-juvenile-arrests-california.


significant statistical increases as compared to states with continued

marijuana prohibition.

2. Money Spent on Marijuana Possession Enforcement

According to Jeffrey Miron, who studied the possible impacts

of drug legalization, state and local governments in the United States

spend an estimated $25 billion annually enforcing the marijuana

prohibition laws.49 Taking into account money spent on the police

force, court system, and corrections system used in enforcing

marijuana prohibition, it is clear that states spend far less money

where marijuana is decriminalized.50 In 2010, for example, the Texas

state government spent more money on marijuana possession

prohibition than any other state with an estimated $251,648,800.51

Comparatively, Massachusetts now spends an estimated $9,000,000

after enactment of decriminalization measures and was spending an

estimated $200,000,000 annually enforcing previous marijuana

possession laws.52 While the numbers do show remarkable cost

savings, they are qualified in that marijuana possession arrests are a

rather small portion of the criminal justice system, so one must

examine the figures through that lens.53

3. Marijuana Possession Arrests and Racial Disparities

49 Jeffrey Miron & Kathleen Waldock, The Budgetary Impact on Ending Drug

Prohibition, CATO INST. 1, 5 (2010),

object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/DrugProhibitionWP.pdf. 50 War on Marijuana in Black and White, supra note 16, at 113. 51 Id. at 178. 52 War on Marijuana in Black and White, supra note 16, at 114; see Jon Gettman,

Marijuana in Massachusetts, The Bulletin for Cannabis Reform,

www.drugscience.org/States/MA/MA.pdf (last updated Oct. 19, 2009). 53 For example, in 2003, the total number of individuals arrested in the United

States was 13,699,254 and marijuana possession arrests accounted for 613,986,or

approximately 4% of the total arrests. See James Austin, The Decriminalization

Movement, THE JFA INSTITUTE, http://norml.org/library/item/part-2-2#govtexp

(last visited Sept. 18, 2014).


The most persuasive argument in favor of decriminalizing or

legalizing (to be discussed in Section IV) marijuana is the clear racial

disparity existing in marijuana possession rates.54 Despite

comparable use rates, arrest rates reflect a clear racial bias toward

arresting Blacks at alarmingly higher rates for possession of

marijuana.55 As a result, these communities are disproportionately

affected when individuals are placed in jail for possessing small

amounts of marijuana.56 In the United States, the arrest rate for

Blacks in 2010 for marijuana possession (716 per 100,000) was four

times as high as Whites (192 per 100,000).57 States that have

decriminalized the use and possession of marijuana have seen a

decline in the amount of arrests across race lines, but still possess a

significant amount of racial disparity.58

Furthermore, the total number of Blacks arrested has

significantly decreased when marijuana is decriminalized.59 In

Massachusetts, for example, the actual number of Blacks arrested in

2010 decreased 83% from 2008, the year before the

decriminalization law took effect.60 The resulting incredible decrease

in arrests can be contributed directly to the decriminalization law put

in place in 2008.61 On the other hand, Texas, the state associated with

the highest number of arrests for marijuana possession,62 has seen

nearly a full decade of Blacks being arrested at a rate more than two

times higher than Whites.63

D. Recommendations for Minnesota

54 War on Marijuana in Black and White, supra note 16, at 9. 55 Id. 56 Id. 57 Id. 58 Id. at 10. 59 Id. at 114. 60 War on Marijuana in Black and White, supra note 16, at 114. 61 Id. 62 Stephen Carter, Texas a Leader in Cannabis Arrests, TEXAS CANNABIS REPORT,

http://txcann.com/2013/06/27/texas-a-leader-in-cannabis-arrests/ (last visited

Sept. 21, 2014). 63 The War on Marijuana in Black and White, supra note 16, at 178.


Marijuana has been decriminalized in Minnesota since the

1970’s64 and it should continue, with two major modifications. First,

while an arrest for less than 42.5 grams only leads to a fine of $200

and possibility of mandatory drug treatment,65 possession of over

42.5 grams and up to 10 kilograms can land a citizen in jail for up to

five years and a fine of $5,000.66 The law includes an amount just

over 42.5 grams (e.g. 42.6 grams) within the same penalty structure

as 10 kilograms, which in relative terms, is a significant difference in

volume. To alleviate this issue and create a more reasonable middle

ground, the legislature should amend the penalties under the statute

and create a new second tier including 42.6 grams up to one kilogram

under the same penalty. At the same time, create a third tier

consisting of quantities of 1 kilogram to 10 kilograms. Second,

Minnesota should take Washington D.C.’s lead and reduce the fine

for possessing less than one ounce of marijuana to $25. Some will

argue that a $200 fine does not seem burdensome, but it is actually a

larger fine than many other states that have decriminalized marijuana

use and possession.67 Another reason for lowering the fine is because

Blacks are 7.8 times more likely to be arrested than Whites in

Minnesota for marijuana possession, making Minnesota home to the

nation’s second most disproportionate marijuana possession rates,

behind only Iowa.68 By reducing the fine, while not necessarily

affecting the racial disparity in arrest rates, it will lessen the burden

that disproportionately affects Blacks.

IV. The Recent Wave of State Medical Marijuana Laws:

Economic and Societal Impacts

A. Introduction

64 See Suellentrop, supra note 26. 65 MINN. STAT. § 152.027 (2012). 66 Minnesota Laws & Penalties, supra note 31. 67 States That Have Decriminalized, supra note 2. 68 The War on Marijuana in Black and White, supra note 16, at 158.


The passage of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) in 1970

classified marijuana as a Schedule I narcotic with no legitimate

medical purpose and a high potential for abuse.69 Despite this federal

regulation, there has been much conversation in the medical

community regarding the legitimacy of marijuana as medicine.70

California became the first state to pass a medical marijuana law in

the United States when it did so in 1996, although it was not without

controversy. In a span of just eighteen years, 34 more states as well

as Washington D.C. have enacted some form of medical marijuana

law.71 Moreover, as a result of marijuana still being a Schedule 1

narcotic at the federal level, states with medical marijuana systems

have no guidance on implementation and the result is inconsistent

medical marijuana laws among the states.72 Medical marijuana is

such a vast topic that encompasses so many different issues,

including the fact that no two states have the same system,73 that

medical marijuana and its’ sub-parts are worthy of individual articles,

separate from this one. Here, an overview of how the different types

of laws operate as well as how they affect society and the economy

in states where medical marijuana laws are implemented is

appropriate to understand the public policy implications.

69 See Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, supra

note 1. 70 See J. Michael Bostwick, Blurred Boundaries: The Therapeutics and Politics of

Medical Marijuana, 87 MAYO PROC CLIN. 172 (2012) (arguing that the federal

government treat marijuana in the same vein as certain opiates and stimulants by

giving it statutory medical legitimacy). 71 Of these states, 22 have “comprehensive” medical marijuana programs, in that

they allow the more potent levels of THC (in addition to CBD). Eleven of these

states, however, have extremely limited CBD-specific laws outlawing forms of

marijuana high in levels of THC. See State Medical Marijuana Laws, NAT. CONF.

OF ST. LEGISLATORS, http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/state-medical-

marijuana-laws.aspx (last updated Aug. 25, 2014). 72 See Claire Frezza, Medical Marijuana: A Drug Without a Medical Model, 101

GEO. L.J. 1117, 1125 (2013) (arguing that the federal laws and lack of enforcement

of those laws are contributing to the inconsistency among the states in

implementing medical marijuana programs). 73 Id.


In this section, I will analyze several medical marijuana laws

around the United States operating in different ways and examine

arguments surrounding the possible implications of implementing

the laws. First, I will analyze the types of medical marijuana laws by

using the systems in place (or soon to be in place) in California,

Alaska, and Minnesota. Second, I will look at the arguments

surrounding social and economic implications of medical marijuana

laws including the legitimacy of marijuana for medicinal purposes,

possible tax income incentives, and potential effects on crime rates.

Finally, after weighing the benefits and risks of expanding the

medical marijuana system, I will recommend Minnesota expand the

program so that it does not leave out patients with serious conditions

who can legitimately benefit from medicinal marijuana.

The table presented below provides a brief overview of

medical marijuana laws selected from states with differing systems.

I chose California, Alaska, and Minnesota as examples of the

different types of laws. California has one of the broadest medical

marijuana laws around the country, allowing for medicinal

dispensaries. Alaska and Minnesota, on the other hand, have medical

marijuana laws that are more restrictive in the conditions that are

covered as well as forms of ingestion. In addition, one of the main

concerns of medical marijuana laws are related increases in crime

rates. Presented below are property and violent crime rates from the

year prior to enacting medical marijuana laws and those same rates

in 2012.


Table 2 – Summary of Medical Marijuana Laws in Select States

State (Year

medical

marijuana

law enacted)

Number of

Serious

Conditions

Covered

Forms of

Ingestion

Allowed

Dispensari

es of

Medical

Marijuana

Tax income Potential Effect on

Property Crime

Rates

Potential Effect on

Violent Crime

Rates

California

(1996) Most broad

system in

nation

Leaf (can

possess any

reasonable

amount), oils,

edibles, liquid,

pillviii

Yes Yes; est.

between

$58-105

million

annuallyix

1996:

1,710.1/100,000x

2012: 2,772.6/100,000

(up almost 1,000)xi

1996:

848.2/100,000

2012:

424.7/100,000

(down over 400)

Alaska

(1998) Most

restrictive

system in

nation

Leaf (up to 6

plants), any

usable formxii

No (home-

grown,

provided by

care

specialists)

Yes (very

limited);

estimated

$20,633 in

2012xiii

1998:

4,123.1/100,000xiv

2012: 2,739.4/100,000

(down nearly 1,400)xv

1998:

653.9/100,000

2012:

603.2/100,000

(down 50)

Minnesota

(2014) Range of

conditions

covered at

relative

middle point

between CA

and AK laws

Liquid, pill,

vaporized

oilxvi

No

(provided

by

caregivers

who receive

it from 1 of

2

manufactur

ers)

No data; will

make money

from

application

fees

(patients and

two

manufacture

rs)xvii

(new law, so crime

rates will need to be

examined later)

2012:

2,544/100,000xviii

2012:

231/100,000xix

B. State Medical Marijuana Law Examples: California, Alaska,

Minnesota

In 1996, the citizens of California passed Proposition 215

(also known as the Compassionate Use Act) with a vote of 56%,

making California the first state to legalize marijuana for medical


purposes.74 Under the California law, patients can seek medical

marijuana where it “has been recommended by a physician who has

determined that the person’s health would benefit from the use of

marijuana.”75 Conditions that qualify for use of medical marijuana

include the treatment of cancer, AIDS, glaucoma, anorexia, chronic

pain, arthritis, migraine, “or any other illness for which marijuana

provides relief.”76 In addition to California being the first state to pass

a medical marijuana law, it is also home to the most lenient law in

terms of qualifying conditions and forms of ingestion.7778 As a result

of the lack of regulation, the statute governing medical marijuana

leaves substantial room for cities and counties to implement the

program in the best way they see fit.79 Some cities, including Los

Angeles, allow medical marijuana patients to form non-profit

collectives to cultivate and sell out of dispensaries while the city

collects taxes from the sales.80

Moreover, under this law the amount of marijuana a citizen

can possess is entirely dependent upon the severity of the individual’s

illness.81 The California Court of Appeals qualified this by stating

“while a ‘reasonable amount’ of marijuana which may be possessed

by a qualified individual under the Compassionate Use Act (CUA) is

74 Proposition 215, CAL. DEP’T OF PUB. HEALTH 2014,

http://www.cdph.ca.gov/programs/MMP/Pages/CompassionateUseact.aspx (last

visited Sept. 12, 2014). 75 CAL. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE § 11362.5 (West-1996). 76 Id. 77 See Michael Berkley, Mary Jane’s New Dance: The Medical Marijuana Tango,

9 Cardozo PUB. L. POL'Y & ETHICS J. 417, 439 (2011). 78 In 2014, a medical marijuana regulatory bill was introduced into the California

Assembly that would provide more control and direction for cities in implementing

medical marijuana systems, but the bill did not advance passed a committee in the

Assembly. California, MARIJUANA POLICY PROJECT,

http://www.mpp.org/states/california/ (last visited Sep. 11, 2014). 79 California’s Medical Marijuana Laws & Regulations, AMERICANS FOR SAFE

ACCESS, http://www.safeaccessnow.org/californias_medical_marijuana_laws (last

visited Sept. 20, 2014). 80 Id. 81 Littlefield v. County of Humboldt, 159 Cal. Rptr..3d 731, 738 (Cal. Ct.

App.2013).


a flexible standard based upon the individual user, it is not without

reasonable limits that include consideration of quantity.”82 Further,

because the statute is silent as to the allowable methods of ingestion

of medical marijuana to be used by patients, they are allowed to

consume any marijuana compound— whether it’s in leaf, oil, liquid,

or edible form.83 Additionally, Proposition 215 allows patients with

a physician’s recommendation or their primary caregiver to cultivate

their own marijuana plants to be used for medicinal purposes.84

In 1998, Alaska became the second state to enact medical

marijuana legislation.85 Under this law, a patient with a debilitating

medical condition such as cancer, glaucoma, HIV/AIDS, or treatment

of conditions or illnesses that can be alleviated with the use of

marijuana including: “cachexia; severe pain; severe nausea; seizures,

including those that are characteristic of epilepsy; or persistent

muscle spasms, including those that are characteristic of multiple

sclerosis.”86 In addition to a qualifying condition, a patient needs a

physician’s examination to determine if marijuana is the right course

of treatment.87 A patient can then apply to be on the registry and get

an identification card.88 This card allows the patient and a primary

caregiver, designated by the patient, to possess up to one ounce of

marijuana in “usable form” as well as growing up to six plants in a

82 Littlefield, 159 Cal.Rptr.3d at738. 83 California NORML Patient’s Guide to Medical Marijuana, CAL. NORML

http://www.canorml.org/medical-marijuana/patients-guide-to-california-law (last

visited Sep. 10, 2014). 84 An individual is limited to four plants total, of which just two can be flowering

at any one time. Id. 85 Alaska was technically tied for second with Oregon, which also passed a

medical marijuana law in 1998. 1999 ALASKA LAWS CH. 37 (S.B. 94); see Or. Rev.

Stat. § 475.300 (2007). 86 ALASKA STAT. § 17.37.070 (2007). 87 To find a physician willing to do this in Alaska is very difficult, however,

because of the conflict with federal law. See The Twenty-Three States and One

Federal District With Effective Medical Marijuana Laws, MARIJUANA POLICY

PROJECT, http://www.mpp.org/assets/pdfs/library/MMJLawsSummary.pdf (last

visited Sep. 12, 2014). 88 Id.


private residence.89 Significantly, a problem arises in that the law

provides for only an affirmative defense of medical marijuana, not

protection for physicians or patients from being arrested.90 The law

provides no legal way to acquire medical marijuana, like in

California through cooperative run dispensaries.91 This also inhibits

the amount of patients able to access the medical marijuana system

in Alaska because of the lack of physicians willing to treat conditions

with marijuana.92 As of March 2014, there were only 1,898 “patients”

in Alaska, including both patients and primary caregivers because

Alaska does not separate the two.93

Minnesota became the 22nd state to legalize medical

marijuana when Governor Mark Dayton signed the bill into law on

May 29, 2014.94 It is not set to take effect until mid-2015, but it is

one of the most restrictive medical marijuana laws in the country in

that it severely restricts the list of medical conditions covered in

addition to the forms of ingestion allowed.95 Health care practitioners

must diagnose a patient with a qualifying condition and sign a written

form stating that they will be responsible for the treatment of that

patient.96 Qualifying medical conditions include “cancer (if the

patient has severe pain, nausea, or wasting), HIV/AIDS, Tourette’s,

89 “Usable form” of marijuana is defined as “the seeds, leaves, buds, and flowers

of the plant (genus) cannabis, but does not include the stalks or roots.”The Twenty-

Three States and One Federal District With Effective Medical Marijuana Laws, ,

supra note 104; ALASKA STAT. § 17.37.070 (2007). 90 Id. 91 See Jeff Richardson, Medical Marijuana: Why It’s Not an Issue in Alaska,

NEWS MINER (May 22, 2011, 12:18 A.M.), http://www.newsminer.com/medical-

marijuana-why-it-s-not-a-big-issue-for/article_ad775be2-8130-557a-afea-

840a062f2106.html. 92 Id. 93 Medical Marijuana Patient Numbers, MARIJUANA POLICY PROJECT,

http://www.mpp.org/states/medical-marijuana-patient.html (last updated April 24,

2014). 94 2014 MINN. SESS. LAW SERV. CH. 311 (S.F. 2470) (West). 95 This was due, in part, to Governor Dayton’s insistence on coming up with a

compromise that local law enforcement would support (which proved to very

difficult). Minnesota Medical Marijuana Law Overview, supra note 88. 96 Id.


ALS, seizures, severe and persistent spasms, Crohn’s disease, and

terminal illnesses (if the patient has severe pain, nausea, or

wasting).”97 By leaving patients with legitimate medical conditions

out of the program – such as people without cancer or a terminal

illness suffering from wasting, nausea, or intractable pain, Minnesota

is home to one of the most restrictive medical marijuana laws in the

country.98

Moreover, the law is restrictive in the forms of administration

it allows. Under the Minnesota law, a patient can only ingest medical

marijuana through liquids, oils, and pills made from marijuana and

cannot use the drug in plant form.99 A patient will be allowed to

inhale the marijuana though a vaporized oil.100 This law is different

from both California and Alaska in that, the law provides for just two

in-state manufacturers of all the marijuana used for medicinal

purposes.101 Pharmacists working for the manufacturers will be

dispensing the marijuana to patients.102 Further, the amount allowed

under the law will be a 30-day supply, which is currently an

undetermined amount.103

C. Societal and Economic Implications of Medical Marijuana

1. Medical Legitimacy: Conditions and Forms of Ingestion

Many different arguments permeate the medical marijuana

legitimacy debate. Opponents of medical marijuana laws believe that

for the most part, marijuana provides no medicinal purpose or if it is

medically legitimate, the potential benefits are outweighed by the

97 2014 MINN. SESS. LAW SERV. CH. 311 (S.F. 2470) (West). 98 The law potentially leaves thousands of individuals who are suffering from

diseases causing severe symptoms treatable by medical marijuana without the most

effective method of relief available. Minnesota Medical Marijuana Law Overview,

supra note 88. 99 2014 MINN. SESS. LAW SERV. CH. 311 (S.F. 2470) (West). 100 Id. 101 Id. 102 Minnesota Medical Marijuana Law Overview, supra note 88. 103 Id.


various risks associated with its use.104 Conversely, proponents

believe that marijuana serves many different legitimate medicinal

purposes including neuropathy pain (associated with AIDS, diabetes,

and cancer), glaucoma, Crohn’s Disease, nausea (associated with

chemotherapy), epilepsy, and Tourette’s syndrome.105 In addition,

proponents argue that marijuana provides relief to many patients by

effectively treating conditions currently only treated with painful,

nauseating prescription drugs.106

Medical professionals disagree as to whether marijuana is

proven to be legitimate for medicinal purposes. Many physicians

argue that marijuana has not been tested enough to definitively

determine whether it is medically beneficial.107 This has been due, in

part, to onerous federal restrictions medical marijuana research.108

There is evidence of possible risks associated with ingesting

marijuana medically including respiratory issues connected to smoke

inhalation of marijuana as well as possible dependency issues.109 In

recent years, however, marijuana has been more widely accepted as

an effective means in treating certain medical conditions.110

While there is disagreement about whether to prescribe

marijuana to patients, marijuana has gained recognition in effectively

treating certain medical conditions including neuropathy pain

(associated with AIDS, diabetes, and cancer), glaucoma, Crohn’s

Disease, nausea (associated with chemotherapy)111, epilepsy, and

104 Bostwick, supra note 75, at 172. 105 Paul Armentano, Recent Research on Medical Marijuana, NORML,

http://norml.org/component/zoo/category/recent-research-on-medical-marijuana

(Last updated Jan. 7, 2014). 106 Bostwick, supra note 75, at 172. 107 See Igor Grant, Medical Marijuana: Clearing the Smoke, 6 J. OPEN

NEUROLOGY 18 (2012). 108 Id. 109 While these risks are possible, when the risks do materialize, they are found to

be much less problematic as compared to side effects of long-term cigarette

smoking. Grant, supra note 123. 110 See Bostwick, supra note 75, at 172. 111 Barth Wilsey et al., A Randomized, Placebo-Controlled, Crossover Trial of

Cannabis Cigarettes in Neuropathic Pain. 9 J. PAIN 506 (2008).


Tourette’s syndrome.112 Research has also suggested marijuana

could be effective in treating multiple sclerosis (MS) as well as

amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS; commonly known as Lou

Gherig’s Disease).113

States that have passed medical marijuana laws differ in

conditions covered. Under the broad law in California, for example,

all of the conditions listed may be treated with medical marijuana.114

On the other hand, Minnesota has restricted access to those who have

acquired cancer or a terminal illness, but denies access to those

suffering from severe pain, nausea, and wasting.115 Some states, such

as Iowa, North Carolina, and Wisconsin116, have restricted medical

marijuana laws to only cover oil extracts from strains of marijuana

high in cannabadiol (CBD) and low in tetrahydrocannabinol (THC),

the two main active components in marijuana.117 CBD is non-

psychoactive and has been linked in effectively treating many

conditions including chronic pain, nausea, schizophrenia, and

epilepsy.118 Unlike CBD, THC is the psychoactive component giving

users euphoric feelings but has still proven to be extremely effective

at alleviating many medical conditions.119

112 See Armentano, Recent Research on Medical Marijuana, supra note 122. 113 Id. 114 See CAL. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE § 11362.5 (West-1996). 115 2014 MINN. SESS. LAW SERV. CH. 311 (S.F. 2470) (West). 116 There are eleven total states with CBD-specific medical marijuana laws. See

John Ingold, Lawmakers in 11 States Approve CBD Low-THC Medical Marijuana

Bills, THE DENVER POST,

http://www.denverpost.com/marijuana/ci_26059454/lawmakers-11-states-

approve-low-thc-medical-marijuana. (Last updated June 30, 2014). 117 Science, PROJECT CBD, http://www.projectcbd.org/medicine/science/ (last

visited Sep. 10, 2014). 118 Conditions, PROJECT CBD, http://www.projectcbd.org/medicine/conditions/

(last visited Sep. 10, 2014); see also Cannabis and Cannabinoids, NAT. CANCER

INST. http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/cannabis/patient/page2 (last

visited Sep. 11, 2014) (discussing the benefits that tetrahydrocannabinol (THC),

the psychoactive component of the marijuana plant, is beneficial in treatment of all

of the same conditions. The concern with THC is the subsequent “high” feeling

after consumption). 119 See Science, PROJECT CBD, supra at note 134.


Further, as previously mentioned, there are many different

means of administering medical marijuana including inhaling smoke,

swallowing a pill/liquid, or vaporizing oils.120 There is argument

amongst scholars and physicians to what method of ingestion is

safest and most effective for patients. Inhaling marijuana through

smoking has been the traditional method of delivery because of its

ease and immediate effectiveness.121 In addition, preference for

smoking marijuana, despite risks, exists because patients are able to

more effectively control dosage to obtain the desired effect.122 It has

been proven, however, that there are various risks associated with

smoke inhalation, such as lung damage and respiratory

issues/problems.123 As a result, methods to extract the active

components of marijuana (THC and CBD) into a liquid or oil form

have been developed for pill production or for use in vaporizing

inhalation devices.124 It is argued that these forms of ingestion

present a safer way to still effectively obtain relief from marijuana

without the negative side effects associated with smoke inhalation.125

2. Economic Benefits: Tax Income and Other Fees

States with medical marijuana laws are able to collect taxes

and/or fees derived from various sources.126 For example, some states

such as California and Colorado have allowed for the opening of

120 See Arno Hazecamp et al., Evaluation of a Vaporization Device (Volcano) for

the Pulmonary Administration Tetrahydrocannabinol, 95 J. PHARM. SCI. 1 (2006). 121 Id, 122 Id. at 9. 123 Id. at 1. 124 Id. 125 Hazecamp, supra note 136, at 9. 126 Erecting dispensaries to sell medicine to patients allows the state or city/local

governments to collect taxes raised from the proceeds. In addition, states without

dispensaries can still collect patient, caregiver, producer, and doctor fees associated

with the different laws. See Solar Thermal, The Economic Ripple Effects of Medical

Marijuana Dispensary Boom, DAILY KOS (Mar. 2, 2010, 11:45 AM),

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/03/02/842254/-The-Economic-Ripple-

Effects-Of-The-Medical-Marijuana-Dispensary-Boom#.


public dispensaries to sell medical marijuana to patients.127 The

dispensaries in California are not allowed to collect profits from the

retail sale of medical marijuana and instead, the tax revenue

generated from medical marijuana sales go straight to the California

government.128 Additionally, there is no state agency regulating the

medical marijuana industry, so it is left up to city and local

governments to decide how to best regulate medical marijuana in

their respective communities.129 California does collect taxes from

medical marijuana, however, through the Board of Equalization.130 It

is estimated that the state of California generates between $58 and

$105 million annually from medical marijuana taxes.131 In addition,

cities can also impose their own tax on retail sales. Los Angeles, for

example, imposes a 0.6% tax on gross receipts of revenue and

collected an estimated $2.5 million in 2012.132

Most states, however, have not implemented a medical

marijuana dispensary system, instead only generating income from

collecting fees from patients, manufacturers, and physicians.133

These states will charge patients an amount as a fee for registering to

receive medical marijuana. In Alaska, for example, the fee is $25134

and in Vermont it is $50.135 In addition, some states tax the marijuana

after it is manufactured and before it is given to physicians or primary

caregivers to administer to patients.136 For example, in Minnesota’s

new system, there will be only two designated manufacturers (yet to

be chosen) and each manufacturer applying for consideration must

127 Id. 128 Id. 129 See State Medical Marijuana Programs’ Financial Information, SUPRA NOTE

80. 130 Id. 131 Id. 132 Id. 133 See 2014 MINN. SESS. LAW SERV. CH. 311 (S.F. 2470); ALASKA STAT. §

17.37.070 (2007). 134 ALASKA STAT. § 17.37.070 (2007). 135 See Patient Information, VT. DEP’T PUB. SAFETY,

http://vcic.vermont.gov/marijuana_registry/patients (last visited Sept.11, 2014). 136 2014 MINN. SESS. LAW SERV. CH. 311 (S.F. 2470) (West).


pay a $20,000 fee to the state.137 In comparison to states with

dispensary systems generating tax revenue from retail sales, these

medical marijuana programs take in a substantially lower amount of

revenue.138 In Alaska, where the government collects only a $25 fee

from new patients and a $20 renewal fee, the state income from

medical marijuana sales was only $20,632 in 2012.139 This income

did not even cover the costs associated with the program.140

3. Crime Rates

One central argument against enactment of medical

marijuana programs is that property and violent crime rates will

increase because marijuana dispensaries and cultivation facilities are

likely to have large amounts of cash on hand.141 Medical marijuana

and crime rates do not necessarily correlate, as there are countless

factors to consider.142 It is worth asking, however, whether there has

been any increase in violent or property crimes in states that have

enacted medical marijuana laws. In 2014, researchers at the

University of Texas published their findings on the correlation

between crime rates and medical marijuana.143 According to this

study, enactment of medical marijuana laws is not predictive of crime

rates and may actually reduce homicide and assault rates.144

Additionally, the study concluded that robbery and burglary rates

were not affected which contradicts the argument that the existence

137 Id. 138 See Thermal, supra note 142. 139 See State Medical Marijuana Programs’ Financial Information, supra note 80. 140 Id. 141 See Nancy J. Kepple & Bridget Freisthler, Exploring the Ecological

Association Between Crime and Medical Marijuana Dispensaries, 73 J. STUDY

ALCOHOL DRUGS 523 (2012). 142 Id. at 528. 143 See Robert G. Morris et al., The Effect of Medical Marijuana Laws on Crime:

Evidence from State Panel Data, 1990-2006, 9 PLOS ONE 1 (2014). 144 Id.


of dispensaries and marijuana cultivation facilities would increase

those specific crimes.145

Another argument against medical marijuana laws is that

since marijuana laws are liberalized to allow medicinal use, more

people will be under the influence of marijuana while driving,

leading to more traffic accidents and fatalities.146 A study conducted

in the Journal of Economics examining the 19 states with medical

marijuana laws up to that point, concluded that while more

individuals tested positive for marijuana in traffic fatalities, there was

an 8-11% decrease in traffic fatalities one year after enactment of

medical marijuana laws.147 In addition, the authors concluded that

medical marijuana laws were associated with a marked decrease in

alcohol consumption, which is associated with much higher rates of

traffic fatalities.148 The authors argue this suggests that many people

are substituting marijuana use in place of alcohol.149

D. How Should Minnesota Proceed Regarding Medical

Marijuana?

While the new medical marijuana law is a step in the right

direction, it is too restrictive with regard to the covered medical

conditions. There are thousands of citizens in Minnesota suffering

from medical conditions that cause extreme nausea, pain, and

wasting and yet, unless they have a terminal illness or cancer they

cannot receive relief in the form of medical marijuana.150 While the

forms of ingestion are limited to only pills, oils, and liquid, these

145 Id. 146 Mark B. Johnson et al., The Prevalence of Cannabis-Involved Driving in

California, J. DRUG ALCOHOL DEPENDENCE 105 (2013). 147 D. Mark Anderson et al., Medical Marijuana Laws, Traffic Fatalities, and

Alcohol Consumption, 56 J. L.ECON. 333 (2013). 148 Alcohol is associated with much higher impairment, leading to a decreased

capacity to drive vehicles. Marijuana, on the other hand, is very dependent on the

individual user. It can impair individuals, but the extent is generally far less. Id. at

359. 149 Id. 150 Minnesota Medical Marijuana Law Overview, supra note 88.


ingestion options are sufficient to effectively provide treatment to

most patients as smoking marijuana can potentially cause injurious

side effects to some patients.151 On the other hand, the legislature

should consider making the plant form legal for medicinal marijuana

patients to use in vaporizers as well.152 This is because there is

research to suggest that patients who need accelerated relief from

symptoms associated with their illnesses often prefer to vaporize the

plant form of marijuana because it begins to provide relief faster.153

As such, it should be left up to the diagnosing physician to determine

form of marijuana is best for a patient. As the law stands, however, a

majority of patients using marijuana for treatment may do so by

taking the marijuana in pill or liquid form.

Furthermore, the Minnesota legislature should consider

adopting a dispensary system similar to those enacted in several other

states. Dispensaries allow convenience for patients in obtaining

access to necessary medical treatment for debilitating conditions as

well as providing tax income to the Minnesota government. In

addition, many studies conclude that crime rates generally do not rise

after passing medical marijuana laws, even laws allowing

dispensaries.154 In fact, some of these studies have concluded that

medical marijuana laws have led to a decrease in major crime

categories including homicide and assault.155 Furthermore, there is

some evidence to suggest that medical marijuana laws lead to

decreases in alcohol consumption and total traffic fatalities, two

major public safety concerns.156

V. The Legalization Realization: Possible Societal and

Economic Impacts in Colorado and Washington

151 Even if smoking marijuana has been shown to be more effective in pain

management, it can cause certain unintended consequences that other forms of

ingestion simply cannot. Hazecamp, SUPRA note 136, at 1. 152 Charles W. Webb & Sandra M. Webb, Therapeutic Benefits of Cannabis: A

Patient Survey, 73(4) HAWAII J. MED. PUB. HEALTH 109 (2014). 153 Webb & Webb, supra note 169, at 109. 154 See Anderson et al., supra note 164, at 333; Morris et al., supra note 160. 155 Morris et al., supra note 160. 156 Anderson et al., supra note 164, at 359.


A. The Recreational Model: Colorado and Washington

The citizens of Colorado and Washington voted to legalize

the possession of marijuana, making these the first states to allow

individuals over the age of twenty-one to possess marijuana for

recreational use.157 Each law is significantly different in the way each

system operates. First, the initiative passed by the citizens of

Colorado was a constitutional amendment commonly known as

“Amendment 64” to Article 18, § 16 of the Colorado Constitution.158

Under Article 18, § 16(1)(a) of the Colorado Constitution, the stated

purpose of the amendment is

“in the interest of the efficient use of law enforcement

resources, enhancing revenue for public purposes, and individual

freedom, the people of the state of Colorado find and declare that the

use of marijuana should be legal for persons twenty-one years of age

or older and taxed in a manner similar to alcohol.”159

Further, § 16(3) states that possession, distribution,

transportation, using, or displaying marijuana accessories or one

ounce of marijuana is no longer unlawful.160 Additionally, the

amendment allows individuals to posses up to six marijuana plants,

with three flowering at any one time.161 Under the law, it is still

unlawful to consume marijuana openly and publicly.162

The constitutional amendment passed by voters in 2012 did

not establish the amount of taxes to be collected under the new law.163

Subsequently, voters in 2013 overwhelmingly passed Proposition

AA which established three separate taxes to be imposed on

157 Keith Coffman & Nicole Neroulias, Colorado, Washington First States to

Legalize Recreational Pot, REUTERS (Nov. 7, 2012, 4:43 AM),

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/07/us-usa-marijuana-legalization-

idUSBRE8A602D20121107 158 C.R.S.A. CONST. ART. 18, § 16 (West). 159 Id. 160 Id. 161 Id. 162 Id. 163 ID.


recreational marijuana.164 First, there is a 2.9% sales tax that applies

to all goods in Colorado.165 Second, there is an extra 10% sales tax

on the sale of marijuana and marijuana related accessories.166 Lastly,

there is a 15% excise tax when “unprocessed marijuana is first sold

or transferred by a retail marijuana cultivation facility.”167

Voters in Washington passed “Initiative 502,” creating a

tightly controlled legal marijuana system regulated by the

Washington Liquor Control Board.168 Unlike the constitutional

amendment passed in Colorado, this is a general law enacted by the

Washington legislature. As a result, the Washington law can be

changed by simple legislative action, whereas, in Colorado another

constitutional amendment is needed to change the current law.169

Initiative 502 allows citizens of Washington over the age of twenty-

one to legally posses up to one ounce of marijuana.170 Also unlike the

Colorado law, Washington citizens cannot grow any marijuana plants

within their homes.171

Initiative 502 imposes a 25% tax on retail marijuana at the

productions, wholesale, and retail stages in addition to state and local

sales taxes.172 In comparison to Colorado, the taxes on legal

marijuana are significantly higher in Washington.173 The prices of

164 See Retail Marijuana Taxes, PROPOSITION AA,

https://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/Initiatives/titleBoard/results/2013-

2014/PropositionAAText.pdf (last visited Sept. 23, 2014). 165 Id. 166 Id. 167 Id. 168 Jonathan Martin, Voters Approve I-502, Legalizing Marijuana, THE SEATTLE

TIMES (Nov. 6, 2012, 10:26 PM), available at

http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2019621894_elexmarijuana07m.html 169 See Phillip A. Wallach & John Hudak, Legal Marijuana: Comparing Colorado

and Washington, BROOKINGS INST. (July 8, 2014, 9:51 AM),

http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/fixgov/posts/2014/07/08-washington-colorado-

legal-marijuana-comparison-wallach-hudak. 170 FAQ’s On I-502, WASHINGTON STATE LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD,

http://lcb.wa.gov/marijuana/faqs_i-502 (last visited Sep. 13, 2014). 171 Id. 172 See Wallach & Hudak, supra note 183. 173 Id.


legal marijuana are comparable to those in Colorado, however,

because of the lower price of the product before tax.174 There are

potential upsides and downsides to the higher taxes.175 Higher taxes

could lead to higher revenue if individuals are not turned away

because of the steep tax rates.176 On the other hand, it is argued the

high tax rates can end up limiting the amount of money Washington

is able to collect.177 In addition, there are some concerns that the high

tax rates can lead to individuals reverting back to the illegal market

to purchase marijuana.178 These concerns are quelled, however, by

the fact that the prices of legal marijuana in Washington will still be

lower than illicit marijuana prices.179

B. Societal and Economic Impact Arguments

1. Usage Rates

Critics of recreational marijuana use argue that legalization

efforts will lead to increasing usage rates among minors.180

Conversely, it is argued that legalization bears no direct relationship

with rises in marijuana usage rates.181 Opponents argue specifically

that legalizing marijuana will make people think of marijuana in a

positive light, leading to higher use rates resulting from a more

174 Katy Steinmetz, Everything You Need to Know About Buying Legal Weed in

Washington State, TIME (July 8, 2014). http://time.com/2955024/washington-

where-to-buy-pot/. 175 See Jason Toon, Legal Weed in Washington State Has Been Completely

Screwed Up, VICE NEWS (Mar. 10, 2014, 11:15 A.M.),

https://news.vice.com/article/legal-weed-in-washington-state-has-been-

completely-screwed-up. 176 Id. 177 Id. 178 See Toon, supra note 193. 179 See Steinmetz, supra note 191. 180 Jacob Sullum, If Marijuana Legalization Sends the Wrong Message to

Teenagers, Why Aren’t They Listening?, FORBES (Dec. 18, 2013, 5:10 PM),

available at http://www.forbes.com/sites/jacobsullum/2013/12/18/if-marijuana-

legalization-sends-the-wrong-message-to-teenagers-why-arent-they-listening/ 181 Id.


accepting attitude toward it.182 Though marijuana is apt to lose its

stigma through legalization, there is preliminary evidence from

Colorado to suggest that usage rates are relatively unaffected from

legalization of marijuana.183

The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment

partnered with the University of Colorado to publish a biennial report

entitled the Healthy Kids Colorado Survey.184 The report found that

in 2013, 20% of high school students reported marijuana use within

the last month.185 Additionally, 37% of high school students reported

that they had used marijuana once in their lifetimes.186 Compared to

2011, where rates for high school students using marijuana within the

last month was 22% and marijuana use in their lifetime was 39%,

there is a slight decrease in minor usage following legalization.187

While the survey is not conclusive, it is inconsistent with the notion

that marijuana use in teens will increase with the legalization of

marijuana.188

Opponents also argue legalization poses the threat of a

“gateway effect”.189 This theory purports that marijuana use will

significantly heighten the chances that users will be more likely to

experiment with different drugs or move on to become addicted to

more dangerous drugs like cocaine and heroin.190 The correlation

182 Id. 183 2013 Healthy Kids Colorado Survey, COLO. SCH. OF PUB. HEALTH, available

at

www.ucdenver.edu/academics/colleges/PublicHealth/community/CEPEG/UnifY

outh/Documents/HKCS%202013%20Form%20A.pdf (last visited Sep. 13, 2014). 184 Id. 185 Id. 186 Id. 187 Id. 188 Morgan Fox, Teen Marijuana Use on the Decline in Colorado After Adult

Legalization, MARIJUANA POLICY PROJECT, http://blog.mpp.org/tax-and-

regulate/teen-marijuana-use-on-the-decline-in-colorado-after-adult-

legalization/08082014/ (last updated Aug. 8, 2014). 189 See Ralph E. Tarter et al., Predictors of Marijuana Use in Adolescents Before

and After Licit Drug Use: Examination of the Gateway Hypothesis, 163 AM. J.

PSYCHIATRY 2134 (2006). 190 Id. at 2137.


between marijuana and other illicit drug use can be explained by a

wide variety of reasons that do not support the “gateway effect”

theory. First, marijuana is not always the first illicit drug tried and

the vast majority of individuals whose first illicit drug experience is

marijuana do not go on to try other, harder illicit drugs.191 Second,

some individuals are simply more likely to try mind altering

substances.192 Factors such as psychological stress and employment

tend to have a greater impact on drug use.193 Third, because

marijuana is illegal it is more likely to be sold by individuals who are

also involved with other illicit substances.194 Thus, individuals using

and buying marijuana and not other illicit substances are forced to go

to the black market for marijuana, where individuals are more likely

to encounter other dangerous illicit substances.195 It is argued further

that legalizing marijuana can alleviate this type of behavior by

diverting those individuals in the illicit market (near other dangerous

drugs) to a more safe, controlled, and legal environment.196

2. Crime Effects

There are many potential effects on crime when marijuana is

legalized for recreational purposes.197 First, much discussion centers

on whether legalization leads to an increase in property or violent

191 Rashi K. Shukla, Inside the Gate: Insiders’ Perspectives on Marijuana as a

Gateway Drug, 35 HUMBOLDT J. SOC. REL. 5, 17 (2013). 192 Aina Hunter, Marijuana a “Gateway” Drug? Scientists Call Theory Half

Baked, CBS NEWS (Sep. 2, 2010, 1:01 P.M.),

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/marijuana-a-gateway-drug-scientists-call-theory-

half-baked/. 193 Id. 194 Maia Szalavitz, Marijuana as a Gateway Drug: The Myth That Won’t Die,

TIME (Oct. 29, 2010), available at

http://healthland.time.com/2010/10/29/marijuna-as-a-gateway-drug-the-myth-

that-will-not-die/ (last updated Oct. 29, 2010). 195 Id.. 196 Id. 197 See German Lopez, Everything you Need to Know About Marijuana

Legalization, VOX (Sep. 27, 2014, 9:38 A.M.),

http://www.vox.com/cards/marijuana-legalization/Colorado-legalized-marijuana.


crimes rates.198 Generally, opponents posit that marijuana

legalization will result in more individuals under the influence of

marijuana, a mind altering substance, thereby leading to an increase

in crime rates.199 More specifically, one of the main propositions of

this argument is that the dispensaries opening under the laws in

Colorado and Washington will become magnets for property and

violent crimes.200 It is argued that increased crime will result from

the large amounts of marijuana and cash these places deal with on a

daily basis.201 On the contrary, preliminary evidence out of

Colorado’s recreational marijuana epicenter, Denver, indicates that

these concerns may have been overstated.202 Just over a half a year

has passed since Colorado began selling marijuana at the retail level

and through July 2014, compared to 2013, three of the four main

violent crime categories have shown marked decreases.203 Data

compiled by the Denver Police Department indicates that violent

crime has decreased over 3% and the crimes of homicide, robbery,

and sexual assault have all seen decreases.204 Aggravated robbery,

the fourth of the main violent crime categories, saw a 2.2%

increase.205 Additionally, Denver saw a drop of 11% in property

crimes as compared to the same time in 2013.206

198 Id. 199 See Lopez, supra note 209. 200 See German Lopez, Since Denver Legalized Pot Sales, Revenue is Up and

Crime is Down, VOX (May 14, 2014, 10:10 A.M.),

http://www.vox.com/2014/5/13/5711370/since-denver-legalized-pot-sales-

revenue-is-up-and-crime-is-down. 201 Id. 202 Id. 203 Citywide Reported Offenses, DENVER POLICE DEP’T, available at

http://www.denvergov.org/Portals/720/documents/statistics/2014/Citywide_Repo

rted_Offenses_2014.pdf (last updated Aug. 2014). 204 Id. 205 Id. 206 See German Lopez, Remember When Legal Marijuana was Going to Send

Crime Skyrocketing?, VOX (Apr. 7, 2014, 7:41 A.M.).

http://www.vox.com/2014/4/3/5563134/marijuana-legalization-crime-denver-

colorado.


A second consideration when analyzing the crime effects of

legalizing marijuana is whether it has increased the amount of

individuals driving under the influence of marijuana, commonly

referred to as “drugged driving”.207 Marijuana prohibition supporters

point to reports indicating the number of individuals testing positive

for marijuana has increased in states legalizing medical marijuana.208

One major criticism of these reports, however, is how road-side

marijuana tests are unreliably measured.209 When stopped of

suspicion driving under the influence of marijuana, a test is

administered measuring the number marijuana metabolites in an

individual’s system at the time, rather than measuring an individual’s

level of inebriation as in road-side alcohol tests.210 In addition, there

is some interesting research indicating that legalizing marijuana may

lead to reduced alcohol consumption because users tend to choose

between the two.211 This, in turn, may lead to lower traffic fatalities

overall because of evidence suggesting alcohol is much more

inebriating than marijuana.212

207 Erin Fuchs, Why It’s Crazy to Set DUI Limits for Marijuana, BUS. INSIDER

(Dec. 19, 2013, 1:45 P.M.). http://www.businessinsider.com/why-dui-limits-for-

pot-are-bad-2013-12. 208 See Dan Freedman, Marijuana’s Risk to Drivers Debated, S. F. GATE (Nov.

29, 2013, 11:13 P.M.). http://www.sfgate.com/nation/article/Marijuana-s-risk-to-

drivers-debated-5022778.php. 209 See Fuchs, supra note 219. 210 Further, it is said that hospitals have more reliable tests to measure the level of

marijuana’s psychoactive ingredient (THC) in one’s system. The tests still run into

the problem of varying tolerance levels of the individuals using marijuana, as it

affects novice users differently than longtime users. The problem with this is that

tests resulting in high levels of marijuana metabolites do not necessarily prove the

individual was inebriated by marijuana at the time of the accident. This is because

it can take the human body days or even weeks to metabolize marijuana. Unlike

alcohol, a person testing positive for marijuana might not have ingested within days

or even weeks before the accident. See Fuchs, supra note 219. 211 See D. Mark Anderson & Daniel L. Rees, The Legalization of Recreational

Marijuana: How Likely is the Worst Case Scenario?, 33 J. POL’Y ANA. & MGMT.

221, 224 (2014). 212 Id.


Moreover, after analyzing data from the Colorado

Department of Transportation regarding traffic fatalities, it is shown

that between January 2014, when full legalization took effect, and

July 2014, traffic fatalities are down compared to 2013.213 Five out

of the seven months in 2014, as compared to 2013, are lower.214

These results are not necessarily indicative of a causal relationship

between marijuana legalization and drugged driving rates as there are

many different factors included in assessing traffic fatalities.215 It

does, however, lend credence to the argument hypothesizing various

public benefits associated with the legalization of marijuana.216

3. Economic Effects

Perhaps the most compelling of arguments in legalizing

marijuana for recreational adult use are the possible economic

implications including taxes, jobs, and spending.217 The first

economic implication is the amount of income generated through the

different taxes incorporated within the laws.218 The potential income

that can be made off of retail marijuana sales could be substantial.219

The Colorado Department of Revenue has stated that in January 2014

(the first full month of legalization) the Colorado government

213 See Jacob Sullum, As Colorado Loosened Its Marijuana Laws, Underage

Consumption and Traffic Fatalities Fell, FORBES (Aug. 11, 2014, 3:27 P.M.)

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jacobsullum/2014/08/11/as-colorado-loosened-its-

marijuana-laws-underage-consumption-and-traffic-fatalities-fell/. 214 Id. 215 See Sullum, supra note 224. 216 See Anderson & Rees, supra note 222, at 230 (arguing that legalization of

marijuana may actually serve a public benefit by decreasing the consumption of a

more intoxicating substance, alcohol). 217 See Ranjit Dighe, Legalize It – The Economic Argument, THE HUFFINGTON

POST (Jan. 30, 2014, 1:17 P.M.). http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ranjit-

dighe/legalize-marijuana-economic-argument_b_4695023.html. 218 Id. 219 See Tony Nitti, Understanding The Impact of Legalized Recreational

Marijuana On State Tax Revenue, FORBES (Sept. 24, 2013, 10:12 P.M.).

http://www.forbes.com/sites/anthonynitti/2013/09/24/understanding-the-impact-

of-legalized-recreational-marijuana-on-state-tax-revenue/.


generated over $2 million from recreational marijuana revenue.220

Subsequently, the state generated just over $47 million in tax revenue

from the sale of legal and medical marijuana in 2014.221

Proponents of the legalization effort in Colorado hailed the

plan to divert income generated through recreational marijuana sales

to public school funding.222 Under the law in Colorado, the first $40

million of the taxes collected from the recreational system will be

diverted to the construction of new public schools.223 There is some

question and debate, however, as to where the money will be going

after that.224

The second major economic implication is if and to what

extent legalizing marijuana creates new jobs and businesses. In

Colorado, the marijuana industry has exploded since the legalization

measure passed as a result of the recognition that high demand for

marijuana could result in financial benefits for businesspeople.225

The Medical Industry Group estimates that there are over 10,000

220 John Ingold, Colorado Saw $2 Million in Recreational Marijuana Taxes in

January, THE DENVER POST (March 10, 2014, 3:56 P.M.), available at

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_25314108/colorado-saw-2-million-

recreational-marijuana-taxes-january. 221 See State of Colorado: Marijuana Taxes, Licenses, and Fees Transfers and

Distribution, December 2014 Sales Reported in January 2015, COLO. DEP’T REV.,

https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/sites/default/files/1214%20Marijuana%20Tax

%2C%20License%2C%20and%20Fees%20Report.pdf (last visited Sep. 14,

2014). 222 Yesenia Robles, Pot Revenues Starting to Help Select Schools on Pricey

Projects, THE DENVER POST (July 31, 2014, 12:01 A.M.),

http://www.denverpost.com/marijuana/ci_26247743/pot-revenues-starting-help-

select-schools-pricey-projects. 223 See Kelly Phillips Erb, It’s No Toke: Colorado Pulls in Millions In Marijuana

Tax Revenue, FORBES (Mar. 11, 2014, 9:12 A.M.).

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2014/03/11/its-no-toke-colorado-

pulls-in-millions-in-marijuana-tax-revenue/. 224 Id. 225 German Lopez, Legal Marijuana Created Thousands of Jobs in Colorado,

VOX (May 20, 2014, 3:00 P.M.), http://www.vox.com/2014/5/20/5734394/legal-

marijuana-created-thousands-of-jobs-in-colorado.


people working within Colorado’s marijuana system.226 There are no

signs to indicate that job growth will slow any time soon.227

Furthermore, according to a recent report published by the

ArcView Group, there are indications that legal marijuana is the

fastest growing business in the United States.228 In 2014, the legal

marijuana market grew to $2.7 billion, up from $1.5 billion in

2013.229 If the trend of marijuana legalization continues throughout

the country, the report projects that the legal marijuana market could

topple other fast-growing industries such as the organic food

industry.230

Third, it is argued that legalizing marijuana could potentially

help decrease spending associated with enforcement of previous

marijuana laws. Proponents argue that once marijuana is legalized,

law enforcement can shift its focus to enforcing other crimes that

warrant increased attention.231 Moreover, money may be saved by

not spending on the expensive process of putting individuals through

the court system for marijuana possession.232

On the other hand, others argue that even if legalization

doesn’t lead to higher crime rates, the money spent enforcing

previous laws is only being diverted to enforcing new challenges that

accompany the recreational marijuana law, such as drugged

driving.233 Higher enforcement of drugged driving, as compared to

226 Id. 227 Id. 228 Matt Ferner, Legal Marijuana is the Fastest Growing Industry in the U.S.:

Report, HUFFINGTON POST (January 26, 2015, 10:59 A.M.),

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/26/marijuana-industry-fastest-

growing_n_6540166.html. 229 Id. 230 Id. 231 See Aaron Smith, Legal Pot Means Big Savings on Law Enforcement, CNN

(Oct. 21, 2010, 1:58 P.M.),

http://money.cnn.com/2010/10/21/news/economy/marijuana_california/. 232 Id. 233 Jacob Sullum, How is Marijuana Legalization Going? The Price of Pot Peace

Looks Like a Bargain, FORBES (July 10, 2014, 5:47 P.M.),

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jacobsullum/2014/07/10/how-is-marijuana-

legalization-going-so-far-the-price-of-pot-peace-looks-like-a-bargain/.


pre-legalization, assumes that more people will both be using

marijuana and then subsequently driving after using.234 As previously

noted, those propositions are not necessarily true and legalization

may actually lead to lower traffic accidents and fatalities resulting

from reduced alcohol-related consumption and driving.235 It must be

conceded, however, that there has been an increase in drugged

driving traffic fatalities associated with marijuana.236 This is

explained and contradicted by the increase in marijuana users in

Colorado as well as the fact that because drugged driving deaths may

be up, overall traffic fatalities in Colorado have decreased since

implementing legalization laws.237

Furthermore, it is estimated that Colorado will save between

$12 and $60 million on law enforcement expenses per year as a direct

result of legalizing marijuana.238 Before the passage of the law,

police officers in Colorado were arresting nearly 10,000 individuals

per year for marijuana possession.239 The law has allowed thousands

of citizens to purchase marijuana in a safe environment, without fear

of being prosecuted and becoming criminals.240 Additionally, the

total number of court filings associated with marijuana plummeted

77% from 2012 to 2013 as a result of the legalization measure.241

Both of these pieces of preliminary data are further evidence of cost

savings associated with legalizing marijuana.

4. Legalization in Minnesota?

234 See Bill Briggs, Pot Fuels Surge in Drugged Driving Deaths, NBC NEWS (Feb.

15, 2014, 12:58 P.M.), http://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/pot-fuels-

surge-drugged-driving-deaths-n22991. 235 See Sullum, supra note 224. 236 Briggs, supra note 243. 237 See Sullum, supra note 224. 238 Id. at 242. 239 Id. 240 Id. 241 John Ingold, Marijuana Case Filings Plummet in Colorado Following

Legalization, THE DENVER POST (Jan. 12, 2014, 12:01 A.M.),

http://www.denverpost.com/marijuana/ci_24894248/marijuana-case-filings-

plummet-colorado-following-legalization.


5.

There are countless considerations to take into account when

examining whether Minnesota should follow the footsteps of

Colorado and Washington in legalizing marijuana for adult

recreational use. While the laws in Colorado and Washington are still

relatively new and research on each law is preliminary, analyzing the

laws and possible effects assists citizens and state legislatures around

the country in understanding the impact of legalization. Concerns

about legalization include potential addiction and abuse, possible

increase in usage rates among the youth, increases in driving under

the influence of marijuana, and overstated economic benefits.242 On

the other hand, proponents of legalization argue the economic and

societal benefits are substantial and the purported effects on use and

crime rates are exaggerated.243

Utilizing a cost-benefit analysis, I conclude that the people of

Minnesota and the Minnesota legislature should propel the idea of

legalizing marijuana for adult recreational purposes and regulating it

in a similar fashion to alcohol for four reasons. First, there is

scientific evidence supporting the theory that marijuana is simply no

more unsafe than alcohol.244 Outlawing the use and possession of

marijuana at the same time as commercializing and encouraging the

consumption of alcohol, a substance that is arguably more destructive

to individuals and the public, 245 is contradictory.

242 See Kristen Wyatt, Legal Weed in Colorado and Washington Could Come With

These Big Problems, BUS. INSIDER (Dec. 29, 2013, 7:34 P.M.),

http://www.businessinsider.com/legal-weed-in-colorado-and-washington-could-

come-with-these-big-problems-2013-12. 243 See Hunter Stuart, If You Support Legal Marijuana, Memorize These 13 Stats,

THE HUFFINGTON POST (Apr. 19, 2014, 2:59 P.M.),

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/19/benefits-legalizing-weed-by-the-

numbers_n_5173785.html. 244 Steve Fox et al., MARIJUANA IS SAFER: SO WHY ARE WE DRIVING PEOPLE TO

DRINK? 156 (2009). (arguing that there is evidence of marijuana being a far safer

substance to use than alcohol and yet, commercialization pushes consumers to

drink). 245 Id.


Second, Colorado has already proven the economic benefits

of legalization can be immediate and substantial.246 A particularly

inviting approach to tax revenue exists in Colorado where the first

$40 million in recreational marijuana revenue goes to public school

construction.247 Unlike Colorado, however, if Minnesota pursues

legalization, it should not make the public school funding a one-time

payment. Citizens are more likely to support legalization if they

know the law will result in consistent public benefit funding.

Third, there is preliminary evidence to support the theory that

marijuana legalization doesn’t correlate with increased violent and

property rates.248 On the contrary, evidence suggests that marijuana

legalization may actually be correlated with a drop in major

categories of crime rates.249 Fourth, initial evidence examining

legalization’s effect on traffic fatalities associated with “drugged

driving” suggests a decrease in traffic fatalities post-legalization in

Colorado.250 These four reasons and countless others support the idea

of legalization and Minnesota needs to take a close look at the

systems operating in Colorado and Washington and legalize

marijuana for adult recreational use.

VI. Conclusion

Marijuana laws around the country have been rapidly

changing, resulting in three types of enacted law. First, seventeen

states and Washington D.C. have enacted measures decriminalizing

the possession of small amounts of marijuana.251 Second, twenty-

three states and Washington D.C. have enacted laws legalizing

marijuana for medicinal purposes.252 Third, the citizens of Colorado

246 See Erb, supra note 235. 247 See Robles, supra note 234. 248 Lopez, supra note 212. 249 Id. 250 Sullum, supra note 224. 251 States That Have Decriminalized, supra note 2. 252 State Medical Marijuana Laws, supra. note 76.


and Washington legalized the adult possession of marijuana for

recreational use.253

The state of Minnesota already has a law decriminalizing

possession of small amount of marijuana, which is a commendable

start.254 The law, however, may require some minor changes to

effectively address public policy concerns such as lowering the fine

(which is higher than the majority of states with similar laws) that

disproportionately disadvantages minority populations.255 In

addition, Governor Dayton recently signed a medical marijuana bill

that will take effect in 2015.256 While the bill addresses many

legitimate purposes, the outcome is that it is too restrictive of medical

conditions protected under the law. Those who suffer from an illness

associated with nausea, severe pain, and severe wasting cannot obtain

relief in the form of medicinal marijuana unless their illness is

terminal.257 Finally, after closely analyzing the preliminary data

coming from Colorado regarding legal recreational marijuana, the

Minnesota legislature needs to take action to study the possibility of

legalizing marijuana for adult recreational use. As the public attitude

and perception of marijuana continues to shift increasingly in the

direction of favoring legalization,258 the people of Minnesota and the

253 See Coffman & Neroulias, supra note 171. 254 See MINN. STAT. § 152.027 (2012). 255 The War on Marijuana in Black and White, supra note 16, at 158. 256 Minnesota Medical Marijuana Law Overview, supra note 88. 257 Id. 258 The Gallup Poll conducted in 2013 revealed that 58% of Americans favored

the legalization of marijuana for adult recreational use, up 14% since 2009.

Additionally, residents Alaska, Oregon, and Washington D.C. voted on measures

to legalize marijuana in the November 2014 election cycle, resulting in all three

jurisdictions voting in favor of legalizing marijuana for adult recreational use.

Further, at least six states (including California, Nevada, Mississippi, Arizona, and

Massachusetts) will be voting on similar measures in 2016. Art Swift, For First

Time, Americans Favor Legalizing Marijuana, GALLUP,

http://www.gallup.com/poll/165539/first-time-americans-favor-legalizing-

marijuana.aspx (last updated Oct. 22, 2013); See Dan Merica, Oregon, Alaska, and

Washington, D.C. Legalize Marijuana, CNN,

http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/04/politics/marijuana-2014/index.html (last updated

Nov. 5, 2014); See Niraj Choksi, Forget 2014, Pot Advocates are Already Pushing


individuals representing them in the state legislature should analyze

the current marijuana laws and decide whether continued prohibition

is really in the best interest of the citizens of Minnesota.

i These figures are calculated in relation to that states’ overall spending in “The

War on Drugs”. In the three states other than Massachusetts, marijuana

enforcement results in the highest allocation of resources. The War on Marijuana

in Black and White: Billions of Dollars Wasted on Racially Biased Arrests, AM.

CIV. LIBERTIES UNION (hereinafter War on Marijuana in Black and White) (2013),

https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/090613-mj-report-rfs-rel1.pdf. ii These arrest rates are calculated based on marijuana possession arrests per

100,000 citizens of the state. DUI’s and Drugs: Which States Are Enforcing the

Law? Marijuana Arrests per 100,000 Citizens, ADDICTION TREATMENT (2014),

http://www.addiction-treatment.com/in-depth/duis-and-drugs-state-enforcement/

(last visited Sept. 23, 2014). iii By using the age group of 18-25 in the table, the group with the highest

marijuana use rates, I wanted to illustrate the potential effects decriminalization

may have had on the age group with the most participants. 2008-2010 National

Survey on Drug Use and Health National Maps of Prevalence Estimates, by

Substate Region

SUBSTANCE ABUSE AND MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES ADMIN. (2012),

http://www.samhsa.gov/data/NSDUH/2k10State/NSDUHsae2010/NSDUHsaeCh

2-2010.htm#fig2.1. iv Id. v Id. vi See generally War on Marijuana in Black and White, supra note 16. vii MASS. GEN. LAWS CH. 94C § 32L (2008). viii CAL. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE § 11362.5 (West-1996). ix See State Medical Marijuana Programs: Financial Information, MARIJUANA

POLICY PROJECT, http://www.mpp.org/assets/pdfs/library/State-Medical-

Marijuana-Programs-Financial-Information.pdf. x Crime and Delinquency in California, 1996, OFF. CAL. ATT’Y GEN., (1996),

ag.ca.gov/cjsc/publications/candd/cd96/cd96cr1.pdf. xi Crime in California, 2012, OFF. CAL. ATT’Y GEN., (2012),

oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/cjsc/publications/candd/cd12/cd12.pdf xii ALASKA STAT. § 17.37.040 (2007).

Legalization in at Least Six States for 2016, THE WASH. POST, available at

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2014/10/01/forget-2014-pot-

advocates-are-already-pushing-legalization-in-at-least-six-states-for-2016/ (last

updated Oct. 1, 2014).


xiii See State Medical Marijuana Programs: Financial Information, supra note 80. xiv Crime Reported in Alaska: Uniform Crime Reporting 1998, ALASKA DIV. OF

PUB. SAFETY, https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=180540. xv Uniform Crime Reports, 2012, ALASKA DIV. OF PUB. SAFETY,

dps.alaska.gov/statewide/docs/UCR/UCR_2012.pdf. xvi 2014 MINN. SESS. LAW SERV. CH. 311 (S.F. 2470) (West). xvii Minnesota Medical Marijuana Law Overview, MINNESOTANS FOR

COMPASSIONATE CARE, www.mpp.org/states/minnesota/MNCompromise-

Summary.pdf (last visited Sep. 11, 2014). xviii 2012 Uniform Crime Report, MINN. DEP’T OF PUB. SAFETY 1, 13, (July 1,

2013), https://dps.mn.gov/divisions/bca/bca-

divisions/mnjis/Documents/2012%20Crime%20Book.pdf. xix Id.

The Societal and Economic Impacts of Recent Dramatic ...

Documents

Transcript of The Societal and Economic Impacts of Recent Dramatic ...